ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #49255
MELISSA S. BLUESTEIN, ESQ., BAR ID #130055
PHILLIP A. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #169571
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2850 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (310) 399-0900
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ., BAR ID #47480
6622 Benham Way
Sacramento, California 95831-1143
Telephone: (916) 427-1600
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQ.
DANIEL P. LEONARD, ESQ.
BAILEY, FISHMAN AND LEONARD
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (407) 687-3700
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. SC 031947;
C/W Case No. SC 036340;
C/W Case No. SC 036376
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL WORTH OF DEFENDANT
[8 of 15]
TRIAL DATE: Sept.17, 1996
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT: "L"
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant.
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, hereby moves this Court for an Order instructing plaintiffs and their counsel not to refer to, interrogate any witness concerning, comment on, or attempt to suggest to the jury in any way, any information concerning the financial condition of the defendant until such time as plaintiffs have produced evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 3294.
This Motion is made on the grounds that as a maker of law, pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 3295, plaintiffs may not introduce evidence concerning the defendant's profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages, and finds the defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud, in accordance with Section 3294.
This Motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
In their prayer for damages, plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages. It is anticipated at the Trial of this action plaintiffs will attempt to introduce evidence concerning the worth and financial condition of defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON. Evidence concerning defendant's worth and financial condition will be irrelevant to this action until such time as plaintiffs have produced evidence of a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages.
Additionally, prior to that time, if this ever occurs, defendant contends that the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice to this moving defendant. Moreover, plaintiffs should be precluded from presenting such evidence pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 3295.
2. THE COURT MAY GRANT A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF LIABILITY FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES PRIOR TO INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OR PROFITS.
California Civil Code, Section 3295 states in pertinent part as follows: "(a) The court may, for good cause, grant any defendant a protective order requiring the plaintiff to produce evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages pursuant to Section 3294, prior to the introduction of evidence of: (1 ) The profits the defendant has gained by virtue of the wrongful course of conduct of the nature and type shown by the evidence. (2) The financial condition of the defendant."
Pursuant to Section 3295 above, this Court has the power to grant the protective order requested herein. Plaintiffs should not be allowed to discuss the financial condition or worth of defendant until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding actual damages, and finds the defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294, should such an event ever even occur.
3. THE NET WORTH OR FINANCIAL CONDITION OF DEFENDANT IS IRRELEVANT.
As stated above, plaintiffs should not be allowed to comment on the net worth or financial condition of defendant until such time, if ever, plaintiffs produce evidence of liability for punitive damages. It is highly unlikely that plaintiffs will be able to do this at the Trial of this action. Accordingly, evidence concerning the net worth or financial condition of defendant is irrelevant to this action. California Evidence Code, Section 350 states that "no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence". Accordingly, in the event that plaintiffs cannot produce evidence of liability for punitive damages on the part of this moving defendant, evidence concerning defendant's net worth or financial condition is inadmissible in this action pursuant to Section 350.
4. THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING DEFENDANTS FINANCIAL CONDITION IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE PROBABILITY THAT ITS ADMISSION WILL CREATE DANGER OF UNDUE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT.
California Evidence Code, Section 352 states as follows:
"The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."
As stated above, it is unlikely that plaintiffs will be able to produce evidence of liability for punitive damages on the part of moving defendant. Hence, plaintiffs should be prohibited from introducing evidence concerning the financial condition of defendant pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3295, set out above. Additionally, defendant contends that the probative value of evidence concerning the defendant's net worth or financial condition is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice against the defendant. Accordingly, such evidence should be excluded at the Trial of this action.
5. CONCLUSION.
In light of the foregoing, defendant respectfully requests that this Court Order plaintiffs and their counsel, not to refer to, interrogate any witness concerning, comment on, or attempt to suggest to the jury in any way, any facts concerning the net worth or financial condition of defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, until such time, if ever, plaintiffs produce evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 3294.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON